SO MUCH FOR COMPROMISE

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8895200797299787815.post-30588369032323331772007-11-09T14:19:00.000-06:002007-11-09T15:12:16.839-06:00SO MUCH FOR COMPROMISEWell, after what was it, a workshop and a retreat to try and find compromise that all 7 board members could support, in the end the boundary decision was a 4-3 vote, with not one of the 3 who voted no back in (July?) voting for the latest plan. It is clear Mr. Rylance was correct when he told Mrs. Bowen and Mrs. Weinsheim on Eye on Oshkosh that one of the 4 (Bowen, Kavanaugh, McDermott or Weinsheim) would have to compromise as the other 3 were not going to. What is AMAZING to me is that the plan voted on Wed. night was essentially the plan that Schneider and Becker crafted at the retreat. I spoke to district officials who drafted the resolution and they spoke to both those board members telling them what was in the resolution and even working with Mr. Becker to revise the resolution prior to the board meeting(which is why they were referring to Mr. McDermott's amendment as the SECOND amendment to the resolution). Neither member gave district officials any indication they did not support their own plan. Someone on OshKonversation said they didn't support it because it was changed from their original proposal (hence the title of this post --- if I can't have it exactly my way I'm not voting for it --- that is NOT compromise) and I didn't hear either of them actually offer an amendment to be voted on to bring it back to the plan they developed. Schneider did offer a suggestion to just deal with the high school issue (which of course would have unraveled the rest of the plan and was not the plan developed at the "retreat") but never actually verbalized an amendment the board could vote on. So what you were left with is those who voted for Option E back in the summer in the really interesting position of compromising by choosing the Roosevelt Option, thinking it would be a unanimous, or nearly unanimous vote and in the end they were in the very odd position of compromising with themselves. Why this community wants people on the school board who work against the very interests of children is beyond me. Some board members seem determined to make sure the referendum fails, this referendum is needed to bring equity to our children, that is who will benefit the most --- not our staff, certainly not our administration, but our children. One thing I found very interesting Wed. night was that Mr. Schneider --- staunch defender of respectful behavior at board meetings (he had a great deal of difficulty with me rolling my eyes at his comments) had NOTHING to say to the very disrespectful display put on by some of the citizens in the audience after the vote on the boundary resolution --- I just don't see how rolling eyes is MORE disrespectful than citizens shouting to board members things like "I hope you are proud of yourself", "nice work", "just wait till election time" and the most mature thing of all that occurred was the "citizen" who kicked a chair on his way out the door all because a resolution didn't go their way--- where was the "defender of respect" when all that occurred? Of course it really isn't respect for the board members or the board meeting he cares about, for some reason, he is just overly concerned with my thoughts about his comments and I guess he thinks he deserves respect over and above everyone else. I am glad we are finally moving on to the rest of the facilities plan though I don't expect the 3 to compromise on anything left to come. And does anyone know why Becker and Schneider voted against hiring the architect? That is one of my pet peeves explain your NO vote!Well I must pick up my children from school --- remember, keep comments on topic or they aren't going to be published.Teresa Thielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01097990067216672469noreply@blogger.com